MPAA’s Dodd: Theatrical ‘Most Affordable, Accessible’ Entertainment15 Feb, 2013 By: Chris Tribbey
Besides staying at home “listening to music or watching free TV programming” watching a movie in theaters today is the “most affordable, accessible form of entertainment,” the head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said Feb. 15.
In prepared remarks to the National Press Club, MPAA CEO Chris Dodd said the largely unchanged price of a theatrical ticket in recent years — roughly $8 — has allowed movie theaters “to draw more people than all theme parks and major sporting events combined” worldwide.
“It has never been a better time to be a consumer of movies and TV,” Dodd said. “Because movies matter — to more people, in more places, who want to watch them at more times, across multiple platforms — the film and television industry is continuously innovating to meet that demand,” Dodd said.
Post-theatrical, there are more than 375 legal online distribution services worldwide, offering rental, subscription VOD, download-to-own and free, ad-supported streaming of content, Dodd said.
“These distribution services are provided by every conceivable type of commercial entity — including technology companies, broadcast television networks, pay channels, Internet providers, movie retailers and content-renters like Amazon, Netflix, iTunes and Vudu,” he said.
“So the next time someone suggests the film and television industry is not innovating fast enough to satisfy consumer demand — remind them of those innovations.”
Dodd praised Hulu, Amazon and Netflix for producing original programming for their subscribers, calling the services “great for consumers.”
“I’m not exaggerating when I say a new golden age in television and film is being ushered in,” he said. “You can watch more content than ever, through more channels, and the quality of the movies and TV shows is outstanding.”
Dodd also called for a “balance between the desire for a free and open Internet and the protection of intellectual property.”
“The future cannot be about choosing one over the other — between protecting free speech or protecting intellectual property — it must be about protecting both,” he said.